101-5 C. Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness: (continued) Reading and mathematics services varied widely across States, as measured by the number of States that reported achievement information by subject matter and grade level. For instance, for school year 1982-83, 39 States reported reading achievement results in grade 2, but only 21 States re- ported grade 12 reading. As many as 47 States provided information on mathematics achievement in the elementary grades, while only 26 States reported on grade 12 mathematics. Staffing: Local project funds supported 156,500 full-time-equivalent staff positions during the 1982-83 school term, compared to 172,850 in 1981-82* As in prior years, the majority of staff (approximately 83 per- cent) were either teachers or teacher aides. Federal Monitoring: During FY 1984, the Department conducted 25 onsite State reviews of the LEA grant program portion of Chapter 1. At least two LEAs in each of these States were also visited in order to review ongoing programs for compliance with the statute and regulations. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education reported the following major summary findings of the reviews (E.2): o Most States administer Chapter 1 much the same as they administered Title I. o Local Chapter 1 programs are generally in compliance with the Chapter 1 requirements. o Most States have developed comprehensive guidelines for use by LEAs in administering Chapter 1. Additionally, SEAs provide assistance to their LEAs on a wide range of topics designed to improve and upgrade their programs. Most of the States have developed and implemented effective procedures for onsite monitoring of their LEA programs. o States are increasingly using evaluation data to target program improvement efforts and to identify areas requiring technical assistance. o Most States actively encourage parent involvement in Chapter 1. As a result of audits conducted by the Department, eleven final deter- mination letters on costs of the States' administration of their Title I and Chapter 1 programs were issued. The auditors questioned or disallowed costs totaling $4.5 million; subsequently the Department's determinations required States to refund $3.7 million. Principal violations in the audits included: failure to document salaries of employees paid from more than one program, use of Federal funds to supplant regular State and local funds, and use of Federal funds as general aid (E.2). (For additional information on State and local program administration, see the FY 1983 Annual Evaluation Report, which described the findings of two major studies of program administration under Title I, the Description of District Practices and the Study of State Management Practices.)ar in the upper-right corner of each page.